The Slander of ‘Blowback’ By Kevin D. Williamson

Yes, Ron Paul et al. are blaming the victims.

Ron Paul is feeling some blowback of his own. He was roundly criticized — notably by a number of high-profile libertarians normally inclined to sympathize with many of the views he has helped to popularize — for arguing that the Charlie Hebdo murders were the result of “blowback,” i.e., that French jihadists murdered the staff of a satirical magazine in Paris infamous for its cartoons of Islamic figures in retaliation for U.S. and French foreign policy, rather than in retaliation for the contents of the publication. His argument is absurd on its face — the editors of Charlie Hebdo are not what you would call major players in the foreign-policy world — but Paul rushed to his own defense, which is for him an increasingly lonely task. “Those who do not understand blowback made the ridiculous claim that I was excusing the attack or even blaming the victims,” he wrote.

Islamic Murder By Ritual Purification — on The Glazov Gang

This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Dawn Perlmutter, the Director of the Symbol Intelligence Group and one of the leading subject matter experts (SME) in symbols, symbolic methodologies, unfamiliar customs and ritualistic crimes. She designed and developed Jihad-ID, a symbolic database of the signs, symbols and identifiers of global jihad.

Dawn discussed Islamic Murder By Ritual Purification, taking us behind the scenes of the Charlie Hebdo massacre. The discussion occurred within the context of how Jihadists view blasphemy against Islam.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/frontpagemag-com/islamic-murder-by-ritual-purification-on-the-glazov-gang/

DANIEL GREENFIELD: HOLLYWOOD’S WAR AGAINST AMERICAN SNIPER

TAmerican Sniper is the movie that should not have existed. Even though the book was a bestseller, nobody in Hollywood wanted the rights.

And why would they?

The Iraq War already had an official narrative in Hollywood. It was bad and wrong. Its veterans were crippled, dysfunctional and dangerous. Before American Sniper, Warner Brothers had gone with anti-war flicks like Body of Lies and In the Valley of Elah. It had lost a fortune on Body of Lies; but losing money had never stopped Hollywood from making anti-war movies that no one wanted to watch.

Even the Hurt Locker had opened with a quote from leftist terrorist supporter Chris Hedges.

An Iraq War movie was supposed to be an anti-war movie. There was no other way to tell the story. Spielberg’s own interest in American Sniper was focused on “humanizing” the other side. When he left and Clint Eastwood, coming off a series of failed films, took the helm, it was assumed that American Sniper would briefly show up in theaters and then go off to die quietly in what was left of the DVD aisle.

Islamic State Prime Time By Dawn Perlmutter

ISIS began the 2015 season by releasing a new prime time series of scripted reality shows available on the internet with free previews appearing on most major media outlets. Writers at Al-Furqaan and Al Hayat Media Productions, media arms of the Islamic State that are known for their slick productions, must have decided that people were getting bored with the same old series and reruns that insult America and Britain by beheading their citizens. The writers have been working on different scripts for the new season to peak the media’s interest, earn rave reviews from their fans and increase their viewing audience.

The premiere episode aired on January 12, 2015 titled “Uncovering an enemy within”, introducing a new actor, a child star, a 10-year-old boy who executes two alleged Russian spies by walking behind them and shooting them repeatedly in the head. Part horror film part drama, the show opens with the two being interrogated in Russian about their alleged attempt to infiltrate ISIS. After both men confess to infiltrating ISIS to gather information for the Russian intelligence agency FSB, the video skips to an outdoor scene where the alleged spies are kneeling in a field before a Jihadi Fighter and the new child star who is armed with a pistol.

JIHAD IN TEL AVIV BY JOSEPH KLEIN

Israeli civilians suffered yet another horrific attack on January 21st by a jihadist, whom Hamas described as “heroic.” This latest act of terror occurred on a bus in central Tel Aviv, where nine people were stabbed. Four of them were seriously wounded. The assailant is in Israeli police custody after trying to flee the scene. Palestinians on social media celebrated the attack with hashtag #JeSuisCouteau “I am a knife,” in a cruel twisting of the worldwide expression of support for the victims of the massacre at the Charlie Hebdo magazine headquarters earlier this month – “Je suis Charlie.”

In recent months, jihadists affiliated with or supported by Hamas have killed about a dozen people, including an infant, by running them over with their cars, shooting them or stabbing them to death. These attacks included an invasion by two Palestinian thugs about two months ago at a synagogue in West Jerusalem during morning prayers. The Palestinians were armed with cleavers, knives and a gun, which they used to murder four Jewish worshippers in cold blood.

Here’s Why the Safety of New Yorkers Is About to Suffer By Jack Dunphy

For the businessman, the politician, or the police chief, these may be the six most feared words in the English language: “Al Sharpton is on line one.”

The call is not unexpected, but it is nonetheless jarring when it comes. Something has happened, something with racial implications, something that has made it into the news or onto Twitter or Facebook or Instagram or what have you, there to travel at nearly the speed of light until it tickles the finely tuned antennae of the racial grievance industry and triggers an app on Mr. Sharpton’s cell phone, on which is now displayed the phone number, the direct, no-choose-a-menu-option line to the Head Guy himself, the affected businessman, politician, or police chief. And displayed along with the number, the simple question: “Call?”

He calls.

The Fight Over Obama’s Amnesty Decree Has Nothing to Do With Homeland Security By Andrew C. McCarthy

Here we go again.

Last month’s “CRomnibus” debacle underscored a divide between the conservative base that gave Republicans a resounding victory in the midterm elections and GOP leadership on Capitol Hill: The base wants Obama’s lawlessness stopped; leadership wants to show that Republicans can “govern” by working cooperatively with Obama – in effect, codifying his lawlessness.

Prepare for the next betrayal: Republicans are about to surrender on Obama’s amnesty for illegal immigrants. The surrender, which will be portrayed as a reluctant but noble compromise for the sake of “homeland security,” was baked in the CRomnibus cake.

Within what seemed like the bat of an eye, Republicans crushed their supporters’ spirits by following up their November triumph with a monstrous 1,774-page budget bill that forfeited Congress’s major weapon against executive lawlessness, the power of the purse. The CRomnibus underwrote the government through 2015, expending a staggering $1.1 trillion on such Obama priorities as the full funding of Obamacare – notwithstanding Republican campaign vows to work tirelessly to kill Obamacare.

The Quest for 67: Which Dems May Defy Obama on Iran Sanctions By Bridget Johnson

WASHINGTON — Will a reliably liberal Democrat lead the charge to President Obama’s first veto override?

The Senate Banking Committee will take up the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2015 next week, with a hearing on the bill on Tuesday followed by a markup on Thursday.

Obama vowed in his State of the Union address [1] this week to veto any Iran sanctions legislation. “There’re no guarantees that negotiations will succeed, and I keep all options on the table to prevent a nuclear Iran,” he said. “But new sanctions passed by this Congress at this moment in time will all but guarantee that diplomacy fails, alienating America from its allies, making it harder to maintain sanctions and ensuring that Iran starts up its nuclear program again. It doesn’t make sense. That is why I will veto any new sanctions bill that threatens to undo this progress.”

Election Envy: The Europeans and the Jews Posted By David P. Goldman

Why do Europeans feel such revulsion toward Jews? At a certain level, to be sure, European leaders deeply regret the new persecution of Europe’s Jews. Many share the sentiment of European Commission Vice-Chairman Frans Timmermans, who warned yesterday that an exodus of Europe’s Jews would call into question the premises of European society. Last September, Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel told a rally in Berlin that it was the duty of every German to fight anti-Semitism. Nonetheless even the best-intentioned Europeans feel their skin crawl in the presence of the sort of Jews who represent the future of the Jewish people: those who follow Jewish tradition, raise Jewish families, and embrace the cause of Zionism. Europeans adore secular Israelis who wallow in existential doubts, for example, the novelist Zeruya Shalev, a bestseller in Germany and the winner of any number of European literary awards. I’ve never read Shalev, but then again, I don’t like fiction. Jews like Naftali Bennett, Israel’s economy minister and leader of the Jewish Home party, give them the creeps.

Dan Henninger:Obama’s American Sniper Seeing “American Sniper” made the State of the Union speech pretty unbearable.

Barack Obama was 15 minutes into his State of the Union speech when I arrived home to watch it, having just walked back from seeing “American Sniper.”

Watching a movie about a Navy SEAL who served four tours fighting in Iraq was not the best way to enhance the experience of a Barack Obama speech. As a matter of fact, it was pretty unbearable.

Because Clint Eastwood directed “American Sniper” the movie is about more than the story of Chris Kyle, the highly skilled rifle marksman from Texas. In 2006, Mr. Eastwood presented two movies about the famous World War II battle of Iwo Jima. “Letters from Iwo Jima” told the story from the perspective of Japanese soldiers, and “Flags of Our Fathers” from the Americans’ side.